Judgment:
Rs.No.2497 of 1989 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2497 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:
19. 03.2013 The State of Punjab and another ..Appellants Versus Darshan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present : Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr.Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr.Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the respondent.
A.N.Jindal, J.
(Oral) Having failed before both the Courts below, the defendants- appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') have preferred this regular second appeal.
Darshan Singh-plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration while contending that he was working as Junior Engineer, PWD (B&R) at Nakodar and thereafter, he was transferred at Muktsar.
A charge sheet was issued to him on 21.01.1976 regarding some lapse on his part, to which, reply was filed by him.
Thereafter, a show cause notice was served upon him on 07.02.1978 for recovery of Rs.17,809.40 and regarding stoppage of one increment.
However, no enquiry was held, but another show cause notice was issued to Rs.No.2497 of 1989 (O&M) 2 the plaintiff on 09.10.1978.
It has been further averred that previously, the plaintiff was issued a charge sheet for loss of Rs.2.33 Lacs of bricks.
The plaintiff had filed a detailed reply on 03.06.1981.
However, the respondents, without passing any speaking order, directed the plaintiff to pay Rs.19,379/- as penalty for loss of the bricks vide order dated 02.06.1983.
The said order has been challenged by the plaintiff.
The defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement, wherein they besides taking some preliminary objections, inter alia, submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action and the Civil Court at Muktsar had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
On merits, it was pleaded that reply, submitted by the plaintiff to the charge sheet, was not convincing and the show cause notice dated 07.02.1978 was not withdrawn.
It was further submitted that no enquiry for the minot punishment i.e.recovery of the amount, was prescribed under law.
Since, the plaintiff was responsible for the loss of bricks of the value of Rs.19,379/-, therefore, the recovery was rightly effected.
Replication was filed.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1.
Whether the order dated 02.06.1983 is null and void?.
OPP 2.
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?.
OPD 3.
Whether this Court has no jurisdiction?.
OPD 4.
Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?.
OPP 5.
Relief.
The trial Court decreed the suit, against which, the defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the fiRs.Appellate Court.
The main contention raised by learned State counsel is that Rs.No.2497 of 1989 (O&M) 3 since no reply to the show cause notice was filed, therefore, inference would be drawn that the plaintiff did not want to say anything, as such, the penalty was rightly imposed upon him.
The defendants appear to have admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff had filed reply to the show cause notice.
However, it is mentioned that it was duly considered, but this admission does not find mention in the impugned order (Ex.P1).where the it was recorded that no reply has been filed to the show cause notice.
Since the defendants have admitted filing of the reply to the show cause, the impugned order appears to have been passed without application of mind.
When once the reply has been filed, then the punishing authority was bound to consider the same before passing the order of penalty.
Even otherwise, there is no evidence against the plaintiff regarding loss of the bricks, as alleged.
The order dated 02.06.1983 is absolutely illegal, as no enquiry was held against him qua the said loss.
It was the responsibility of the Sub Divisional Engineer and the Executing Engineer as the bricks were being removed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, however, the Executing Engineer had stopped the same.
Actually, there was a fight between the Sub Divisional Engineer and the Executive Engineer and the plaintiff was made a scapegoat.
The judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and well founded.
The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective.
No substantial question of law arises for determination.
Dismissed.
19.03.2013 ajp [ A.N.Jindal ].Judge